Would the VAT be applied to music downloads as well?
I would guess iTunes and Napster restrict their services for the reason of simplicity because some labels may not want to give these services the right to sell in certain markets. As the idea of paying for music is a relatively new enterprise, at this early stage it's alright, buisness wise, to do this. But if/when the market takes off, expect these services to expand their markets or die.
Except, again, oil is a regulated market. For every barrel Iraq puts on the market, OPEC can take off. So even controling Iraqi oil doesn't do it, and there were much easier, less expensive ways to get it. (If ever there was a mid-eastern leader who could become a puppet for the US, it was Saddam)
We went to Iraq the second time because of one reason: political capital. For twelve years the American people have lived with the expectation that another war with Iraq was inevitable. Once or twice a year under the Clinton administration Clinton would have to adress the nation to say "No! Really! Our current systematic bombing of Iraqi air-defenses will not lead to something bigger!" Essentially the US has been in an undeclared hot war with Iraq since the first Gulf War. (as opposed to a continuing cold war with North Korea, hence the difference in policy) 9/11 gave us the international political capital to end it once and for all. Sure, we lost all the warm-fuzzies coming out of Europe from 9/11, but warm-fuzzies aren't all that useful and have short shelf-lives.
We're saying oranges are orange in color and you disagree by saying fruit can be red or green. Go through the heirarchy. What, specifically, are these posts discussing within the topic?
Hell, you even responded to that post directly. This is/., I would think people here would understand basic parent-child inheritance from some odd run-in with OOP at least.
In a fine case of RTFA: The European Commission also could order Microsoft to include rival media players with Windows to make those products as easy for users to access as Microsoft's own music and video player.
This is not saying "Hey Microsoft, let an OEM have the option of installing something else on their computers" which is a perfectly reasonable request. This is "Hey Microsoft, you will include versions of RealOne and Quicktime in Windows." Why stop there? Hey Microsoft, you will include Lotus 1-2-3 in your Office software. Hey Microsoft, you will bundle Game Cube with your X-Box. It's absolute crap.
If you believe dictators have absolutely no clue what's going on in their countries, you would be right. However, you already labeled the nervous system outside of the brain for what it is; communications. The brain simply knows what is happening to its body, and can either listen or ignore, similar to the advisors and the generals who surround a dictator (if one of these gets too uppity, the brain may just cut the offending limb off, and not even for medical reasons). The brain has no requirement to follow the will of the body, if the brain messes up and continuously stubs the left foot, the left foot has no hope of "voting out" brain cells. The brain will either learn, or it won't. The body is never going to overthrow the brain and replace it with a new one. The key here is CENTRAL nervous system. No thinking is being done outside the brain, only information gathering, which is best thought of as the reports thrown upon a ruler's desk, not election results that have an almost certainty of being enforced.
Actually, you're backing up my point; there is no irony in the model Microsoft (according to Bill Thompson) has chosen, as it's based off of totalitarianism, not communism. Thompson specifically chose communist regimes to compare Microsoft to, so my criticism is fair.
It is rather ironic that Microsoft and other closed model companies rather resemble the Stalinist or Maoist model of a command economy with complete centralised control.
Yes, and so does the human nervous system. So that must mean that we are all Stalinists! I wonder why Fascist/Hitlerian was left out, as the command structure there is exactly the same as in a Communist system.
Nope. It's exactly in line with the law and "normal court rulings".
Ah, I see you are humor impaired;). It's in reference to court decisions stretching all the way back to Schenck v. United States and possibly best illustrated in Gitlow v. United States, where instead of abiding by NY State law and keeping Gitlow in prision, the courts decided to (wrongly) marry the First to the Fourteenth (just three years prior the Supreme Court ruled the Fourteenth did nothing of any practicle use to the First), then water them both down to keep Gitlow behind bars. Now we have to worry about what speech is protected by the First and what is not, when before all speech was protected by the absolute language of the First from federal infringement.
So she has every right to open a baby-supply store (nursery) and use the exact same trademark "lucasnursery". Or she could open a pizzaria called "lucasnursery". She just can't open a landscaping company and use that mark.
And I never said that the name should be the sole domain of the Lucas Nursery in the story. Just that it seems coming darn close (I said reasonable example, not absolute) to trademark infringement when you have a website whose domain name is the same name as the company it is discussing being owned and opperated by someone who isn't affiliated with the company. For that matter, it's a.COM suffix: commercial. So we have a commercial site (admitidly so by it's suffix, it could have been.net or.org) with the same name as Lucas Nursury talking solely about Lucas Nursury. Very, very, very close to the line.
Anyway, the thing here, as I read the article, was the site name was not www.lucasnurserysucks.com, it was simply www.lucasnursery.com. If you truely do believe in trademark infringement, this would seem to be a reasonable example of it, as this would be a reasonable guess for someone to type into the adress bar who is trying to get to the official page.
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if this gets overturned. It's basically a court saying the First Amendment means something without trying to create some law. Such a radical departure from normal court rulings is bound to get the attention of the Supremes.
Gasoline versus Petroleum = Gas versus Petrol. You're just jealous because we can get rid of more letters when we abbreviate.:)
BTW: Gasoline is a type of refined Petroleum. When you say you're filling up your car with Petrol, it's a bit like saying you're taking the oil right out of the ground and immediately throwing it into your car.
Depends on the coin. I believe with US coinage there is a slight edge to the tails side, as the heads side is heavier. So, if you frequently bet money on coin tosses, consistantly calling tails will earn you a little money.
"Oops I did it again" was written by Max Martin and Rami and released in 2000. Do we have to wait 50 years past their deaths to be able to create a song that is similar? Or is the copyright owned by an immortal corporation? Someday someone may want to use words or melody similar to "Oops, I did it again". They will not be allowed to distribute it until the copyright laws are changed. It is not about having to pay for THIS song. It is that we have lost the ability to create anything similar to this song.
I don't know, have you listened to the radio recently? There's an awful lot out there that sounds very similar, both in words and melody. Copyright still allowed Coolio to remake Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise" into "Gangsta's Paradise," and Wierd Al is alive and kicking. I do know of some instances where people have tried to copyright chords and progressions, but to the best of my knowledge no one has succeeded. I really just don't see it.
But this is an arguement for restoring copyrights to their original state, not eliminating them. I think a 20 year copyright with two ten year extensions for artistic works with the kind of draconian enforcement we have being excercised now is perfectly reasonable. Software, which I feel should be copyrighted and not patented, should probably be five year with a five year extension due to the rapid progress in the field. Whatever "harm" the dying industry does is temporary and it wouldn't be harming anyone if people just followed the laws. Your problems in this case do not lie with copyrights, but with the nature of the civil courts.
Much of recent music is controlled by a few companies that will not open their catalogs, and that hurts humanity.
Yes, but those creators agreed to that condition when they signed the contract. So they chose to keep their catalogs closed. Hurts humanity? Somehow I think humanity will survive the horror of having to shell out $15 to have a copy of "Oops I did it again" for the next 90 years. Certainly not reason enough to diwscard the current system in favor of a philosophicaly inconsistant one.
Except I fail to see your overriding philosophy here. Is IP something that the creator has the right to control, or should it be in the public domain? You've simply provided differing buisness models, which if true market forces will rest upon in time and no laws need change, as creators are perfectly free to release their IP for free distribution already. #4 and #3 happened in spite of copyright. If you are correct in your analysis #1 will do the same thing. So, by your arguement, I fail to see why copyright law needs to change at all, as the free distributors of music will obviously have a more successful buisness model and so will dominate the industry naturally.
Fine, you may want to put your music on the internet for free for advertising. Good for you, what's stopping you? Nothing, great. The problem is that you want everyone else's works also on the internet for free. One size fits all?
What if we go over to a related industry; video/film. Let's say I make a successful short film, do I deserve to be compensated only when it is played for profit? Here, the situation is reversed. Instead of the actual transfer of the film being the advertising, as you claim, to get people into the theater, it's the display at Sundance, for instance, being the advertising to get people to pick up the DVD. Under your system the independant film maker is totally screwed. Once your film gets into a format the public can get its hands on, it's perfectly fine for anyone to burn and distribute copies. Heck, Time Warner may decide they really like my video and so put it in a snazzy-looking, professional package for them to distribute without paying me dime one. My film may be a hit on media, but I'm lucky to see anything from it as it's been "played for profit" only a handful of times, and even those times I had to offer it to the theaters essentially for free through contests to get them to show it.
But you don't have to even go to the indy level for that. Many big budget movies now only break even when they hit DVD. So your method hurts both the little and big guys equally. At least you're non-discriminatory in this regard.
This is not simple conditioning, however, where you make your muscles bigger and bones denser, she actually changed the shape and proportions of her limbs while doing this. People who train for decades have not been able to match her skill at climbing simply because they started too late and their physical structure is already set.
I've only seen the previews of the Hulk movie, but with the tank, IIRC, the hulk grabed the turret and swung the thing around? I really wanted to see the body suddenly fly off, leaving the Hulk only holding the turret, as, again, IIRC, tank turrets are held in place simply by gravity.
Re:It's not the physics they bend...
on
Comic Book Physics
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Actually, it's the other way around. Our shoulders and wrists are not deveolped to climb and bound around in trees because we don't. If we started from a young age, our bodies would adapt. Discovery Channel has a series "More Than Human" and in one episode they examined a girl who was frieghteningly good at climbing darn near everything. Turns out her best friend while growing up happened to be chimp... or something... anyway she of course played with it and, kids being naturally fearless, thought nothing of the heights or falling. As a result her fingers and arms adapted. Quite interesting to find out how maleable the human body can be during its development.
Re:I though otherwise, so did my physics teacher.
on
Comic Book Physics
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What I find funny are those instances where a superhero will pick up something like a cruise liner and nothing bad will happen to the structure considering its entire weight is resting on a surface area the size of the hero's palms. Just once I'd like to see a superhero try to save that falling jet and accidentally tear it apart.
Because you would need to use less ethanol than you produce for this to be viable in the least. Then you would need a large net gain of ethanol in a relatively short period of time for this to actually have a significant impact on the comsumption of petroleum.
Good choice, but you don't even need to go to the sequal. Tribes 1 is still a great game even if the graphics are dated, and I believe all the cheating issues have been worked out.
Slashdot Mirror
No no no! People who don't like baseball simply do not DRINK enough!
Would the VAT be applied to music downloads as well?
I would guess iTunes and Napster restrict their services for the reason of simplicity because some labels may not want to give these services the right to sell in certain markets. As the idea of paying for music is a relatively new enterprise, at this early stage it's alright, buisness wise, to do this. But if/when the market takes off, expect these services to expand their markets or die.
Except, again, oil is a regulated market. For every barrel Iraq puts on the market, OPEC can take off. So even controling Iraqi oil doesn't do it, and there were much easier, less expensive ways to get it. (If ever there was a mid-eastern leader who could become a puppet for the US, it was Saddam)
We went to Iraq the second time because of one reason: political capital. For twelve years the American people have lived with the expectation that another war with Iraq was inevitable. Once or twice a year under the Clinton administration Clinton would have to adress the nation to say "No! Really! Our current systematic bombing of Iraqi air-defenses will not lead to something bigger!" Essentially the US has been in an undeclared hot war with Iraq since the first Gulf War. (as opposed to a continuing cold war with North Korea, hence the difference in policy) 9/11 gave us the international political capital to end it once and for all. Sure, we lost all the warm-fuzzies coming out of Europe from 9/11, but warm-fuzzies aren't all that useful and have short shelf-lives.
Everett Dirksen is the congressman.
We're saying oranges are orange in color and you disagree by saying fruit can be red or green. Go through the heirarchy. What, specifically, are these posts discussing within the topic?
/., I would think people here would understand basic parent-child inheritance from some odd run-in with OOP at least.
"Why should Microsoft be required to offer Real's whoreware product, laden with spyware and annoying popups and notifications."
Hell, you even responded to that post directly. This is
In a fine case of RTFA: The European Commission also could order Microsoft to include rival media players with Windows to make those products as easy for users to access as Microsoft's own music and video player.
This is not saying "Hey Microsoft, let an OEM have the option of installing something else on their computers" which is a perfectly reasonable request. This is "Hey Microsoft, you will include versions of RealOne and Quicktime in Windows." Why stop there? Hey Microsoft, you will include Lotus 1-2-3 in your Office software. Hey Microsoft, you will bundle Game Cube with your X-Box. It's absolute crap.
If you believe dictators have absolutely no clue what's going on in their countries, you would be right. However, you already labeled the nervous system outside of the brain for what it is; communications. The brain simply knows what is happening to its body, and can either listen or ignore, similar to the advisors and the generals who surround a dictator (if one of these gets too uppity, the brain may just cut the offending limb off, and not even for medical reasons). The brain has no requirement to follow the will of the body, if the brain messes up and continuously stubs the left foot, the left foot has no hope of "voting out" brain cells. The brain will either learn, or it won't. The body is never going to overthrow the brain and replace it with a new one. The key here is CENTRAL nervous system. No thinking is being done outside the brain, only information gathering, which is best thought of as the reports thrown upon a ruler's desk, not election results that have an almost certainty of being enforced.
Actually, you're backing up my point; there is no irony in the model Microsoft (according to Bill Thompson) has chosen, as it's based off of totalitarianism, not communism. Thompson specifically chose communist regimes to compare Microsoft to, so my criticism is fair.
It is rather ironic that Microsoft and other closed model companies rather resemble the Stalinist or Maoist model of a command economy with complete centralised control.
Yes, and so does the human nervous system. So that must mean that we are all Stalinists! I wonder why Fascist/Hitlerian was left out, as the command structure there is exactly the same as in a Communist system.
Nope. It's exactly in line with the law and "normal court rulings".
;). It's in reference to court decisions stretching all the way back to Schenck v. United States and possibly best illustrated in Gitlow v. United States, where instead of abiding by NY State law and keeping Gitlow in prision, the courts decided to (wrongly) marry the First to the Fourteenth (just three years prior the Supreme Court ruled the Fourteenth did nothing of any practicle use to the First), then water them both down to keep Gitlow behind bars. Now we have to worry about what speech is protected by the First and what is not, when before all speech was protected by the absolute language of the First from federal infringement.
.COM suffix: commercial. So we have a commercial site (admitidly so by it's suffix, it could have been .net or .org) with the same name as Lucas Nursury talking solely about Lucas Nursury. Very, very, very close to the line.
Ah, I see you are humor impaired
So she has every right to open a baby-supply store (nursery) and use the exact same trademark "lucasnursery". Or she could open a pizzaria called "lucasnursery". She just can't open a landscaping company and use that mark.
And I never said that the name should be the sole domain of the Lucas Nursery in the story. Just that it seems coming darn close (I said reasonable example, not absolute) to trademark infringement when you have a website whose domain name is the same name as the company it is discussing being owned and opperated by someone who isn't affiliated with the company. For that matter, it's a
But can you ever be liberal in the right ways? ;)
Anyway, the thing here, as I read the article, was the site name was not www.lucasnurserysucks.com, it was simply www.lucasnursery.com. If you truely do believe in trademark infringement, this would seem to be a reasonable example of it, as this would be a reasonable guess for someone to type into the adress bar who is trying to get to the official page.
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if this gets overturned. It's basically a court saying the First Amendment means something without trying to create some law. Such a radical departure from normal court rulings is bound to get the attention of the Supremes.
Gasoline versus Petroleum = Gas versus Petrol. You're just jealous because we can get rid of more letters when we abbreviate. :)
BTW: Gasoline is a type of refined Petroleum. When you say you're filling up your car with Petrol, it's a bit like saying you're taking the oil right out of the ground and immediately throwing it into your car.
And then we'll vote him back in just to piss the Europeans off. :P
Depends on the coin. I believe with US coinage there is a slight edge to the tails side, as the heads side is heavier. So, if you frequently bet money on coin tosses, consistantly calling tails will earn you a little money.
... then my dog died, then it rained, then my house got infested with termites... DAMN YOU BRICK!
"Oops I did it again" was written by Max Martin and Rami and released in 2000. Do we have to wait 50 years past their deaths to be able to create a song that is similar? Or is the copyright owned by an immortal corporation? Someday someone may want to use words or melody similar to "Oops, I did it again". They will not be allowed to distribute it until the copyright laws are changed. It is not about having to pay for THIS song. It is that we have lost the ability to create anything similar to this song.
I don't know, have you listened to the radio recently? There's an awful lot out there that sounds very similar, both in words and melody. Copyright still allowed Coolio to remake Stevie Wonder's "Pastime Paradise" into "Gangsta's Paradise," and Wierd Al is alive and kicking. I do know of some instances where people have tried to copyright chords and progressions, but to the best of my knowledge no one has succeeded. I really just don't see it.
But this is an arguement for restoring copyrights to their original state, not eliminating them. I think a 20 year copyright with two ten year extensions for artistic works with the kind of draconian enforcement we have being excercised now is perfectly reasonable. Software, which I feel should be copyrighted and not patented, should probably be five year with a five year extension due to the rapid progress in the field. Whatever "harm" the dying industry does is temporary and it wouldn't be harming anyone if people just followed the laws. Your problems in this case do not lie with copyrights, but with the nature of the civil courts.
Much of recent music is controlled by a few companies that will not open their catalogs, and that hurts humanity.
Yes, but those creators agreed to that condition when they signed the contract. So they chose to keep their catalogs closed. Hurts humanity? Somehow I think humanity will survive the horror of having to shell out $15 to have a copy of "Oops I did it again" for the next 90 years. Certainly not reason enough to diwscard the current system in favor of a philosophicaly inconsistant one.
Except I fail to see your overriding philosophy here. Is IP something that the creator has the right to control, or should it be in the public domain? You've simply provided differing buisness models, which if true market forces will rest upon in time and no laws need change, as creators are perfectly free to release their IP for free distribution already. #4 and #3 happened in spite of copyright. If you are correct in your analysis #1 will do the same thing. So, by your arguement, I fail to see why copyright law needs to change at all, as the free distributors of music will obviously have a more successful buisness model and so will dominate the industry naturally.
Fine, you may want to put your music on the internet for free for advertising. Good for you, what's stopping you? Nothing, great. The problem is that you want everyone else's works also on the internet for free. One size fits all?
What if we go over to a related industry; video/film. Let's say I make a successful short film, do I deserve to be compensated only when it is played for profit? Here, the situation is reversed. Instead of the actual transfer of the film being the advertising, as you claim, to get people into the theater, it's the display at Sundance, for instance, being the advertising to get people to pick up the DVD. Under your system the independant film maker is totally screwed. Once your film gets into a format the public can get its hands on, it's perfectly fine for anyone to burn and distribute copies. Heck, Time Warner may decide they really like my video and so put it in a snazzy-looking, professional package for them to distribute without paying me dime one. My film may be a hit on media, but I'm lucky to see anything from it as it's been "played for profit" only a handful of times, and even those times I had to offer it to the theaters essentially for free through contests to get them to show it.
But you don't have to even go to the indy level for that. Many big budget movies now only break even when they hit DVD. So your method hurts both the little and big guys equally. At least you're non-discriminatory in this regard.
This is not simple conditioning, however, where you make your muscles bigger and bones denser, she actually changed the shape and proportions of her limbs while doing this. People who train for decades have not been able to match her skill at climbing simply because they started too late and their physical structure is already set.
I've only seen the previews of the Hulk movie, but with the tank, IIRC, the hulk grabed the turret and swung the thing around? I really wanted to see the body suddenly fly off, leaving the Hulk only holding the turret, as, again, IIRC, tank turrets are held in place simply by gravity.
Actually, it's the other way around. Our shoulders and wrists are not deveolped to climb and bound around in trees because we don't. If we started from a young age, our bodies would adapt. Discovery Channel has a series "More Than Human" and in one episode they examined a girl who was frieghteningly good at climbing darn near everything. Turns out her best friend while growing up happened to be chimp... or something... anyway she of course played with it and, kids being naturally fearless, thought nothing of the heights or falling. As a result her fingers and arms adapted. Quite interesting to find out how maleable the human body can be during its development.
What I find funny are those instances where a superhero will pick up something like a cruise liner and nothing bad will happen to the structure considering its entire weight is resting on a surface area the size of the hero's palms. Just once I'd like to see a superhero try to save that falling jet and accidentally tear it apart.
Because you would need to use less ethanol than you produce for this to be viable in the least. Then you would need a large net gain of ethanol in a relatively short period of time for this to actually have a significant impact on the comsumption of petroleum.
Good choice, but you don't even need to go to the sequal. Tribes 1 is still a great game even if the graphics are dated, and I believe all the cheating issues have been worked out.